The Introduction of Hoplite Tactics at Rome: Its Date and Its Consequences

Author(s): Martin P. Nilsson

Source: The Journal of Roman Studies, Vol. 19 (1929), pp. 1-11
Published by: Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/297312 .
Accessed: 03/07/2014 17:55

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to The Journal of Roman Studies.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.28.239.12 on Thu, 3 Jul 2014 17:55:23 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
THE INTRODUCTION OF HOPLITE TACTICS AT ROME: ITS DATE
AND ITS CONSEQUENCES.'

By MARTIN P. NILSSON.

That the close connection between military organization and

state-organization has received little attention in this country is
less to be wondered at, because this country is an exception to the rule.
Being protected by its insular situation, it has had no need of a large
standing army within its boundaries. On the Continent the connection
appears clearly. Feudal organization was bound up with the art of
fighting by knights, and was upset as much by the invention of guns
and gunpowder as by economic development: monarchy was
supported by mercenary armies, and the men who introduced com-
pulsory service have more than others contributed to the founding
of democracy.
But I leave it to others to judge modern history according to
their own opinions, and turn to ancient history, which I know better
and where the connection is more obvious, because warfare was an
almost constant occupation in ancient states and military service a
duty imposed upon the citizens. With the introduction of mercenary
armies the political importance, often even the freedom, of ancient
states disappeared; in Rome it preceded only by two or three
generations the founding of the principate.
The Homeric Age has justly been called an age of knights.
Noblemen drove in chariots to the battlefield, descended and fought
before the rank and file as champions, the mass of soldiers only forming
the indiscriminate background which counted for little. In the
popular assembly also noblemen played the leading part, carried on
the debates and made decisions. What befell a man of the people who
tried to interfere is depicted in the scene of Thersites. Noblemen
fought and spoke for the people; to them belonged property and
political influence.
In the seventh century B.C. a new mode of fighting was developed,
hoplite-tactics.2 It is in striking contrast to Homeric warfare, a
1 Read at the Annual General Meeting of the which is attributed to the first part of the seventh
Society, June iith, 1929. century B.c. by K. Friis Johansen, Les vases
2 See my paper, ' Die Hoplitentaktik und sicyoniennes (see p. I84 and pl. xxxi and xxxii).
das Staatswesen ' in Klio xxii, I 928, p. 270 ff. The lapse of time between this date and that
Because the Chigi vase is somewhat peculiar in here suggested for the introduction of hoplite-
style, it does not afford a good clue to the date; tactics at Rome-the forties of the fifth century B.C.
but the hoplite-phalanx appears on the Macmillan -is only natural; for innovations in the art of
lekytbos and the lekytbos from Rhodes in Berlin, fighting are only learnt from an enemy with whom

This content downloaded from 185.28.239.12 on Thu, 3 Jul 2014 17:55:23 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
2 THE INTRODUCTION OF HOPLITE TACTICS AT ROME:

contrast which is not diminished by the fact that hoplite-tactics

were, of course, developed gradually. I The battle-line of the hoplites
is a moving wall of men, protected by their shields and stretching
their spears threateningly forwards. Its force depends on its
coherence. If it is not broken up, it sweeps away what it encounters
and carries the day; but if a gap is made, if a single man flinches, it
can be rolled up and defeat is at hand.
The contrast is sharp. The Homeric knight was guided by strong
self-assertion; he fought for his personal distinction, glory and
booty. The duty of the hoplite was much more humble-to hold
his place in the rank and file, not to desert his comrade even at the
cost of his life, so that no gap should be made which might involve
the peril and defeat of the whole army.2 To spring forward from the
line to distinguish oneself through personal bravery was a fault no less
serious than untimely flight. The contrast is that of collectivism and
solidarity with individualism and personal ambition. In the State
the same contrast prevails between the ideals of the nobility and the
ideals of the Greek polis. The polis was a severe master which imposed
heavy duties on its citizens, and the obligatory character of these
duties was most clearly impressed on the battlefield.
The new tactics contributed to the breaking up of the old state of
the nobility no less than did the economic development, which has
received much more attention. Old tactics were obsolete, the art of
fighting and the bravery of the knights went down before the spear-
guarded battle-line of the hoplites, as the knights of Charles the Bold of
Burgundy before the pikes of the Swiss: the predominance of the
noblemen in the state which was founded upon their similar position
in battle was undermined. The armour and weapons of the hoplites
were costly, but not nearly so costly as the keeping of horses and
procuring of armour. Consequently, many more citizens took their
place in the hoplite-army; and, as they decided the destiny of the
State on the battlefield, it was only natural that it was given to them
to decide its destinies in the popular assembly also. The ideal of the
State of the hoplites (TroxL-,zc Tiv 06TLv) had always a firm grip on
the Greek mind.
a people is constantly warring-e.g. the Romans Tullius,' but relies solely upon the traditional
took over manipular tactics during the Samnite connection of the so-called Servian class-system
wars. There was no immediate contact between with Kin( Servius Tullius. That is obviotisly nio
the Romans and the Greeks, and wars between good reason.
Greeks and Etruscans were waged in Campania
That the change came about gradually is
only when the Etruscans attempted to conquer
justly remarked by Kromayer in Kromayer und
that province. It may reasonably be suggested
Veith, Kriegfuhrung der Griechen und Romer
that the Etruscans learnt to know and took over
(Handbuch der klass. Altertumswissenschaft, iv.
the phalanx at this time, viz. the sixth century B.C.
Abt., 3. Teil, 2. Bd., p. 2z; cf. p. 28); but
Thus the date here suggested for its introduction
this, of course, does not impair the sharp contrast
at Rome will appear to be reasonable. E.
in discipline.
McCartney, ' The Military Indebtedness of Rome
to Etruria ' in Memoirs of the American Academy 2
Cl. the oath of the young Athenian citizens
in Rosne, I, 1917, p. 156, refers the reform to in Pollux viii, I05: OVW ey-KaTraXeiqw TrO
' one of the Tarquins, whom we shall call Servius c' dv oTOL.
racapaaradT?v

This content downloaded from 185.28.239.12 on Thu, 3 Jul 2014 17:55:23 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 ITS DATFE AND ITS CONSEQUENCES. 3

It was the duty of every citizen to procure weapons and armour

for himself. As long as noblemen played the most prominent part
in battle, there was no need of any organization, because class-sense
and ambition drove them to take their places and win distinction.
When a great many new citizens were placed in the decisive battle-
line and it was extremely important that they should be as numerous
as possible, the need became apparent to find out those on whom the
duty to serve as hoplites could be imposed. The qualification became
one of property which sufficed to procure hoplite-armour. In this
way timocracy arose ; for, originally, timocracy is not founded on
property as such but on ability to do military service, and this was,
as we have seen, bound up with the possession of property to a certain
value. But already in Solon's laws a real timocracy had been developed,
wealthier citizens having certain prerogatives, or to put it rightly,
noblemen preserved some of their privileges, as did the knights in
Solon's class-system, and timocracy was developed by attributing
some prerogatives to, and imposing certain special duties on, the
wealthiest class.
It is certain that hoplite-tactics were introduced into Rome also. 1
D'r. Helbig has ingeniously shown that, in the earliest time of the
Republic, Roman tactics much resembled Homeric warfare.2 The
champions whom Dr. Helbig calls mounted hoplites rode to the
battlefield, dismounted, and fought on foot. The difference is
the use of the pilum, which implies chiefly that the Homeric knights
drove while the Romans rode; the kind of fighting must have been
much the same. There is an old tradition concerning the introduction
of hoplite-tactics to which Professor Ed. Meyer has drawn attention.
It is incorporated in an account of some negotiations between the
Romans and the Carthaginians at the outbreak of the first Punic War. 3
The Carthaginians say that they wonder how the Romans dare to
embark on war with them, when they have neither a fleet nor
experience of naval warfare. The Romans reply that they have
always learnt from others, whom in the end they have overcome: they
have taken over the phalanx from the Etruscans and manipular tactics
from the Samnites.
The reliability of the tradition cannot be disputed: from a
general point of view it is extremely probable that the Greek hoplite-
tactics were introduced into Rome and came between the old mode
of fighting, described by Dr. Helbig, and the well-known manipular
This paper owes much to Professor Ed.
T 2 W. Ilelbig, ' Die Castores als Schutzgotter des
Meyer's illuminating article, ' Das romische r6mischen Equitatus ' in Hermiiesxl, 1905) p. Ion;
Manipularheer, seine Entwicklung und seine Zur Geschichte des riimischen Equitatsss in
Vorstufen,' first printed in the Abbandlungen der Abhandlungen der bayer. Akad. der Wiss., phil.-
preuss. Akad. der Wiss., I923, no. 3, and reprinted hist. Klasse xxiii, no. 2, i902. Cf. Kromayer and
with additions in his Kleine Schrilten ii, p. I93 Veith, loc. Cit., p. 235.
seqq. ; but the connection between the reform of 3Inedituni Vaticanumn iii; Hermiiesxxvii, I892.
the military organisation and the constitutional Diodors romische Annalen, herausgeg. von A. B.
reform is made on my own responsibility. Drachmann (Lietzmann's Kleine Texte no. 97), p. 67.

This content downloaded from 185.28.239.12 on Thu, 3 Jul 2014 17:55:23 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
4 THE INTRODUCTION OF HOPLITE TACTICS AT ROME:

tactics. The only question is, When did this happen ? Some scholars
have supposeda thorough army-reformafter the battle of the Allia, 1
but it is not certain that that great disasterwas caused by defects in
Roman tactics and army organisation: it may have been due to a
failure of nerve when facing an unknownand terrible foe. In reality
the progressof Rome had begun some years before this date, and it
had alreadytaken the first steps which ultimately led to the mastery
of Italy. The most remarkableof these is the conquest of Veii, five
years before the battle of the Allia ; but alreadyin the last years of
the fifth century Rome had made notable advancestowardsthe south,
conqueringand colonisingVelitrae, Anxur and other places. On the
other hand, the early and middle parts of the fifth century are filled
with incessant and fruitless wars with the neighbouring peoples.
It seems,therefore,reasonableto ascribethis definiteprogressof Rome
at the end of the century to the results of a reform which added to
the strength and fighting qualitiesof the Romanarmy. Consequently,
this may be dated some time before the close of the fifth century.
But general considerationshave a restricted value, and a more
definite argumentfor this dating can be found. ProfessorEd. Meyer2
has brieflypointed to the story of the dictator,A. PostumiusTubertus,
in 432 B.C., who put his son to death becausehe sprangforwardfrom
the line and engagedin a victoriousduel with an enemy3; and he has
justly appreciated it as an illustration of the contrast between the
old mode of fighting and the new discipline of hoplite-tactics. I am
inclined to attribute still greatervalue to this story. There is nothing
legendary about it ; it is no wandering motif, although it has been
transferredto T. ManliusTorquatus. The case is very easy to under-
stand at a certain time, when the old mode of fighting, the springing
forward of the champions to gain personal distinction, was not yet
forgotten, and when the severe discipline of the hoplite-phalanx, in
which to leave one's place in the battle-line was a crime no less
heinous than untimely flight, must at all costs be enforced. The
Roman mind was such that there is nothing improbablein the story,
and the tragic issue impressedit on people's minds.
If this view is approved, we gain a ter'minusante quem for the
introduction of hoplite-tactics ; it must fall shortly before 432 B.C.4
The date agreeswell with the above considerations,but in dating the
introduction of hoplite-tactics I should not dare to rely solely upon
this story : there are other circumstanceswhich seem to corroborate
the date in a strikingmanner.
Twelve years before this event, in 444 B.C., tribunimilitares con-
1 For a contrary view see Ed. Meyer, loc. cit., 4 L am not unaware of the chronological
p. 26 1. n. i. difficulties, but I share the opinion of prominent
2Ed. Meyer, loc. cit., p. 272. scholars of recent years that the fasti are better
3 I)iodorus xii, 64; Livy xxix, 5; transferred than they are generally supposed to be, and I do not
to T. Manlius 'rorquatus in 340 n.c. in Livy consider an attempt to correct the conventional
viii, 7-cf. Periocba 54. dates essential in this connection.

This content downloaded from 185.28.239.12 on Thu, 3 Jul 2014 17:55:23 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 ITS DATE AND ITS CONSEQUENCES. 5

sulari potestate were elected instead of consuls. The purpose of the

change has been hotly disputed: it has almost always been connected
with the demand of the plebeians for accession to the high offices,
more especially the consulate, and has been interpreted as a means
either to hinder the admission of the plebeians, if, with Diodorus, this
step is dated to 450 B.C., or to put off the decision of the question, if,
with Livy, their admission is dated to 367 B.C. I think such a view too
narrow. There may have been reasons, not only for a struggle in
regard to the existing offices, but also for developing the institutions
of the State in order to answer its growing needs; and opinions may
have differed- as regards the manner in which this should be done.
Concerning the purpose of the change we know nothing for certain,
but only what can be concluded from the names of the military
tribunes ; and this shows that it implied a militarization of the highest
office of the State. Its holders were freed from part of their civil
functions, in order that they might be able to devote themselves more
effectively to their military duties. This was evidently much needed,
if at this time a thorough military reform was introduced and a new
and severe military discipline was to be enforced.
Moreover, in the following year, 443 B.C., the censorship was
created. The censors without doubt took over some of the duties
formerly incumbent upon the consuls; but the chief purpose of their
office is again attested by its name-it was to make the census, to
distribute the citizens into classes according to their property.
Taxation may have existed in an earlier age, but it cannot have had
any great importance for the State before the introduction of hoplite-
tactics. Withthat change it became all important to assessthe property
of the citizens, in order to discover those whose duty it was to serve
as hoplites. I am firmly convinced that the creation of the censorship
is connected with the introduction of hoplite-tactics ;- for this is
the only obvious and sufficient reason. The task of taxing the citizens
became with this reform so important and so comprehensive that it
could not be carried out by the consuls, who had so many other
duties ; and, moreover, the highest magistrates had to be freed from
civil duties, in order to teach the newly-created army new tactics and
a new discipline.
I think that the interconnection is evident and that the reform
of the highest office and the creation of the new office are best
explained in this way: for then we find a clear and adequate reason
for the change. The political effect of the army reform went farther
and caused a reform of the State-institutions also, and this latter
reform had still more important consequences.
The well-known Servian scheme of the classes has come down to us
remodelled by later generations. The property prescribed for each
of the classes is evaluated in arsses,and money was struck in Rome only
in the middle of the fourth centuiry: moreover, it has been proved

This content downloaded from 185.28.239.12 on Thu, 3 Jul 2014 17:55:23 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
6 THE IN TRODUCTION OF HOPLITE TACTICS AT ROME:

that the asses referred to are the two-ounce asses which were
introduced in 269 B.C. This may only be a later evaluation of the
amount of property which was defined in another manner; we
cannot say whether any other change has been introduced. The
following calculation has, however, been made. On the assumption
that the assessment of the lowest class, II,OOO asses, corresponds to
the value of a heredium, a garden-plot of two jugera, the property
prescribed for the first class would be slightly less than twenty jugera
(i.e. about twelve acres or five hectares), which is really no great area.1
According to this calculation, the great mass of the first class were not
great landowners but at most well-to-do farmers, such as were able
to procure full hoplite-armour and weapons, and this seems to show
that the tradition is substantially correct.
The tradition also gives an account of the armour and weapons
which were prescribed for the different classes. This account is
schematic, and may have been remodelled according to later ideas
and misunderstandings ; but in one point at least it seems trust-
worthy, viz. that full hoplite-armour and weapons were prescribed
for the first class.2
Both these points, taxation and the prescription of certain armour,
are essential to an army-reform through which a hoplite-phalanx
was created; before this, they had by no means the same importance.
That the scheme of the classes was instituted by King Servius Tullius
is an ancient opinion which has long ago been discredited, but to what
time it is to be ascribed is completely doubtful. If the main principles
are older than the time to which the existing tradition belongs-and
we have seen that they certainly are-they agree in a remarkable
manner with the necessary premises of a hoplite-army, the first class
comprising those who were able and obliged to serve as hoplites.
The scheme has been built up -upon earlier foundations like that of
Solon at Athens, but it is idle to speculate about the form which the
class-system may have had before that which is described in our
historical sources. The all-important main point is that the system is
essentially adapted to the requirements of a hoplite-phalanx; and
hence, if it existed at all before this time, it must have been very
thoroughly readjusted when the army-reform which created the
hoplite-phalanx was carried through.
The Servian classes and centuries form one of the popular
assemblies in Rome, the comitiat centuriata. The military character
of this assembly is well known. It must needs meet outside the
pomerium on the Campus Martius. To summon it is called exercitum
imperare. It is presided over only by a magistrate holding the

1 Accordingly I cannot accept the reasoning of use of modern statistics is more specious than
A. Rosenberg, Untersuchuegen zur rdmischen sound.
Zenturienverfassung, p. 23, who tries to show that 2 Cf. Ed.
Meyer, loc. cit., p. a7o and n. 3.
the first class comprised really wealthy men. His

This content downloaded from 185.28.239.12 on Thu, 3 Jul 2014 17:55:23 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 ITS DATE AND ITS CONSEQUENCES. 7

imperium, i.e. military command, and during its meeting the red
war-flag flies on the Janiculum. It is the people under arms serving
as a popular assembly.
This principle is old and time-honoured. The army was the
first popular assembly among several peoples of the Aryan stock-the
Teutons, the Homeric Greeks, the Macedonians and in Sparta.
Therefore it is presumably old in Rome too, older than Rome itself.
But it is to be noted that the comitia centuriata and the army are
not identical, although they are often said to be so. This is of course
obvious; for the effective army in Rome did not comprise all the
citizens whose duty it was to do military service. All the citizens
who were able to bear arms were summoned only when tumultus was
proclaimed. A levy was made in order to form the effective army.
Those who were not levied could not, however, be deprived of their
votes. This point, indeed, has been demonstrated at length by recent
writers. 1 Under these circumstances it is tempting to assume that the
Servian scheme represents the cadres from which the levy was made.
But that is not possible either. The levy was made according to the
tribes, and it is impossible to fit even the oldest twenty tribes into the
scheme of the Servian centuries. The necessary conclusion is that, the
Servian system is a voting-system with a military base; but we are
unable to guess the time when this voting-scheme was created, and
the changes which it may have undergone. Only one point seems
certain, namely, that its main principle is closely link'ed up with the
hoplite-phalanx and is derived from its creation.
We have noted, on the one hand, that the army is the oldest
popular assembly and, on the other, that the comitia centuriata
cannot be very old, because it is not a real army but a voting syst-em
founded on the hoplite-army. There existed in Rome an older
popular assembly, the comitia curiata. In historical times, it was an
unimportant relic from antiquity; but that it had once exercised
the sovereignty in the State is demonstrated by the fact that the
magistrates had to be invested with their authority by a lex curiata
de imperio, although it was as sheer a formality as the lex de imperio
through which in a later age the popular assembly invested the
emperor with the sovereignty of the people. The comitia curiata had
long since passed out of practical political life and is very little known:
but from certain formalities which still survived it has been deduced
that it was based on the gentes, and this seems likely; for a popular
assembly answering to the gentilician State, which prevailed in the
early age of Rome as in the early age of Greece, must be presumed.
The military system of this age in which the nobility prevailed
was also founded upon the gentes. It is surmised that the thirty
curiae were connected with the three oldest tribes-the Tities,
the Ramnes and the Luceres which remained as names belonging to
1 Especially by A. Rosenberg, loc. cit., p. 3 sqq. i ct.- Ed. Meyer, loc. cit., p. 270, n. 1.

This content downloaded from 185.28.239.12 on Thu, 3 Jul 2014 17:55:23 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
8 THE INTRODUCTION OF HOPLITE TACTICS AT ROME:

the six first centuries of knights, the leaders of which certainly were the
tribuni celerum. This may have been the army of mounted hoplites
of the early age. A sidelight is cast on this military system by the story
of the three hundred Fabii who undertook the war against Veii and
fell at the Cremera in 477 B.C.' Whatever may be thought of the
trustworthiness of the story, its background, the ruin of a whole
gens, can hardly be fiction; for in a later age it would have been
impossible. On the other hand, it cannot be believed that all these
three hundred men were patrician members of the gens Fabia. We
have a vivid picture from the age in which military and state organisa-
tion was founded upon the gentes. The gens marches into the war
with its retainers, the clients, forming one military unit which was
completely crushed.
We have seen what an important change in the life and social
structure of the State the introduction of hoplite-tactics into Greece
involved; and the effect must have been the same in Rome when the
clients, who formerly followed their patrons in war as retainers,
were placed side by side with them in the hoplite-phalanx. This was
stressed some years ago by Professor K. J. Neumann in his interesting
sketch of early Roman history,2 but in my opinion with excessive
emphasis.
Neumann also assumes a great military and political reorganisation
in the early age of Rome; but he adds that it started from a liberation
of the serfs (Bauernbefreiung), supposing that the clients were
originally serfs. In order to organise the liberated farmers, the sixteen
oldest rural tribes were created. This setting free of the serfs is,
he thinks, later than the creation of the four urban tribes and the office
of the tribuni plebis, but earlier than the law of the Twelve Tables,
because the latter recognise free property only. This theory has not
gained approval, and its foundations are unstable. There is no
indication to the effect that the clients were originally serfs or that
the land tilled by them was in reality the property of their patrons.
Hence the statement is not warranted that the reform was carried
through before the time of the decemviri. The ties which united
clients and patrons were chiefly of a moral order but partly of an
economic nature, and implied mutual aid and assistance. There
is no sign that the clients were generally discontented with their
position: in tradition they appear as helpers of the patrician faction.
In spite of these criticisms there is a kernel of truth in Neumann's
view, which ought not to be overlooked. The old bonds between
patrons and clients were slackened, and the clients were freed from the
overwhelming predominance of the patricians when, in a certain
respect, they were put on an equal footing with the latter. The
1 Diodorus xi, 53; Livy ii, 49 seqq. hung der servianischen Verfassung, Akademische
2K. J. Neumann, Die Grundherrschaft der Rede, Strassburg, I900; and in Weltgeschichte
rom. Republik, die Bauernbefrei-uttg utnddie Entste- (herausgeg. von Pflugk-Hartung), 1, 374 seqq.

This content downloaded from 185.28.239.12 on Thu, 3 Jul 2014 17:55:23 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 ITS DATE AND ITS CONSEQUENCES. 9

inevitable consequence of the new military organisation,in which

the gentes had no importance whatever and well-to-do smallholders
were placed side by side with patriciansin the hoplite-phalanx,was
that the plebeians who did hoplite-service had to be conceded the
same importancein the popularassemblyas on the bat'tlefield. So it
is in the comitia centuriata, which is what the Greeks, called 7roXv-r'oc
in
-(J)v O7tnL-vG)V a specifically Roman form. In fact, the reform
usheredin a new era in social development and politics.
It is, however, typical of the Roman characterthat the constitu-
tional reform which the military reform made necessarywas in no
wise radical. The existing popularassembly,the comitiacuriata,was
not re-shaped, but was allowed to retain some of its functions. By
its side a new popular assembly,the comitiacenturiata,was created,
based on the new military organisation. Further, it is typical of the
practicalpolitical sense of the Romans and of their tenacious aristo-
cratic tendencies that in this assembly votes were not counted by
heads, as in Greece, but were proportionedaccording to the military
value of the voters. The militaryorganisationwas simplytransmuted
into a voting organisation,and by' this means a real hoplite-state
was created and the numerical superiority of the lower classes
effectively counterbalanced.
The military organisationis in a certain manner connected with
the rustic tribes ; for these are the levy-districts. How old these
tribes are is uncertain. Their creationis ascribedto the epoch-of the
Kings, but this is of coursenot warranted. The first seventeentribes
areearlierthanthe conquestof Veii; for the eighteenthand nineteenth
tribes were created on the conquered territory. The seventeenth
tribe, Crustumina,has a local name, derived from the town of
Crustumerium,which was conqueredat an uncertain date about the
end of the fifth century. The first sixteen tribes are the oldest, and
they are all named after patriciangentes, though six of these vanished
so early that nowmember of them is mentioned in historical records.
To these sixteen oldest rustic tribes the four urban tribes have to
be added. Their age alsois unknown; but presumablythey are older
than the rustic tribes. They became of importance in political life
when their heads, the tribuni plebis, were invested with legally
recognisedrights as protectorsof the plebeiansin 471 B.C. ; for I con-
siderthis view, which has been propoundedby ProfessorEd. Meyer, 1
as by far the most probable. This extremelystrangeofficemay perhaps
be understoodbetter if the duty of the tribuniplebis was to afford
protection to the urban plebs of a similar kind to that which the
patrons affordedto their clients.
If this view is correct, the assemblyof the plebs-the comitia
tributa, which created the tribuni plebis and carried resolutions on
1 Ed. Meyer ' Der Ursprung des Tribunats und 1895, I seqq ; reprinted in his Kleine Scbrilten,
die Gem,einde der vier Tribus,' in Hermes xxx, i, znd ed., p. 333 scqq.

This content downloaded from 185.28.239.12 on Thu, 3 Jul 2014 17:55:23 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
10 THE INTRODUCTION OF HOPLITE TACTICS AT ROME:

behalf of the plebs, consisted originally only of the urban tribes.

Of course this assembly was only a separate meeting of the plebeians,
an association like many others in Rome ; but the patrician state had
been compelled in a certain measure to acknowledge it and its leaders
as an integral part of the state-machinery. This was a sacrifice to
urban democracy which was not without its risks.
By adding the sixteen rustic tribes to the four urban tribes the
risk was eliminated by a stroke of genius. The country people, who
were more conservative than the artisans and dealers of the town,
and who shared the agrarian interests of the governing class and were
connected with the patricians through old and time-honoured bonds,
obtained an overwhelming majority in the comitia tributa. It would be
rash to guess that the rustic tribes were created and added to the
urban tribes at the same time as the political and military reform
sketched above was introduced; but in fact there exists a connection
which cannot be overlooked. For, if we assume that the rustic tribes
existed in an age in which military and state-organisation was founded
upon the gentes, they had no other function than to unite certain
gentes with their clients. When the clients were set free through the
great reform, the tribes became the organisation of the rustic plebs;
and organisation of the classes was all-important in early Roman
history. Consequently, the importance of the rustic tribes for the
life of the Roman state only began with the reform which made
hoplites of the farmers and gave them the rights which this duty
conveyed.
Thus the future development of Roman history was decided. The
farmers predominated both in the comitia centuriata and in the comitia
tributa. They were in harmony with the land-owning nobility in pro--
moting agrarianinterests ; the only point of contention was which class
was to gain the greatest advantages from the territories which the
newly created hoplite-army added to the Roman state. In the
course of time both won. The nobility became really big land-
owners, and masses of Roman small-holders were distributed over
Italy: they made the possession of the conquered territories secure,
and gave Rome its incomparable numerical strength, through which
it ultimately attained to the dominion of the Mediterranean world.
It has been well said that the Romans conquered Italy, not only by
their swords, but also by their ploughs. The foundation was laid
through the army-reform, and the manner in which it was coupled
with a reform of the state-organisation.
This great reform has been reconstructed ex hypothesi it has
left no traces in tradition except the creation of the offices of the
military tribunes and the censors, but in this fact there is nothing
peculiar. For the reform was primarily of a military order, and about
military reforms in the early age tradition is almost silent. Great
as was the importance of the accompanying reforms of the state-

This content downloaded from 185.28.239.12 on Thu, 3 Jul 2014 17:55:23 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 ITS DATE AND II'S CONSEQUENCES. II

organisation, they were nothing but consequences of the military

reform, and therefore they were less observed, less remembered and
were soon misconstrued in the tradition.
In tradition the outstanding point is the creation of the two new
offices, the military tribunate and the censorship, which the military
reform made necessary in the place of the consulate. Certainly
there has been much controversy concerning these offices, especially
the military tribunate, although their character was not wholly such
as is described by the tradition. For their creation involved an ex-
tending and specialising of the offices, a means to meet the growing
needs of the state-organisation, and these were needs especially caused
by the military reform.
If I am right, there is, on the one hand, a remarkable parallelism
between the historical development in Rome and in Greece. In both
countries the first popular claim was that the laws should be written
down and made accessible to all people. In Athens a quarter of a
century after Draco came Solon, and with him constitutional
reform. In Rome similar constitutional reform was introduced soon
after the legislation of the decemviri. But, on the other hand,
the difference is great and characteristic. Solon's reform was
essentially constitutional and aimed at distributing duties and rights
among the citizens, and it differentiated them according to the then
prevailing ideas. It was framed in accordance with the peculiarity
of the Greek mind, which was always theoretical and intellectual.
The Roman reform was fundamentally military, and only in its
consequences constitutional. It was framed in accordance with the
peculiarity of the Roman mind, which was practical and put the
needs of practical policy in the foreground. Therefore this reform
became the foundation of Roman greatness.

This content downloaded from 185.28.239.12 on Thu, 3 Jul 2014 17:55:23 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions